1841, 1867, 1961 ... Jehovah = Father

I don't know what I think about the Bible right now, today, but, I ran across these quotes, all authorized by LDS Church Presidents, supporting the view for which I was previously charged with apostasy in the modern LDS Church:

“We believe in God the Father, who is the great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father; yet he is our Savior, Redeemer, King, and Great Prototype;… and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.” – Times and Seasons 3 (1 November 1841): 578.

“Jehovah God, Thou Eloheim - Thy Son Jesus Christ” (BYA, 4 Aug 1867) - Brigham Young

“Jehovah, God the Father is one / Another His Eternal Son” (Sacred Hymns #262) - John Taylor

“Jehovah and his Son, Jesus” - (1 July 1961, Church News) - David O. McKay.

Today, the Church teaches that Jehovah is the same character as Jesus, a view primarily introduced and pushed by James E. Talmage, and unsubstantiated by Scripture.

RWW - This one's for you!

... and for the rest of those who have been wanting to hear from me again. Thank you all for your concern, your prayers, and your support. For better or for worse, I have found that blogging specifically to a Mormon audience is utterly not worthwhile. The Mormonism of today has its truth already, and is not looking for any innovation whatsoever. Innovation would separate it from mainstream Christianity, and favor with mainstream Christianity is that which the Saints of today most deeply covet. Strong words, perhaps, but true: If not individually, then collectively.

I am forever the heretic because I believe that Jehovah is the Father, as Joseph Smith did, and because I side with Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff on certain issues which, according to Bruce R. McConkie, implies that I "have the intellect of an ant and the understanding of a clod of miry clay in a primordial swamp" and that I "do not deserve to be saved." Why won't "our" apologists apologize for statements such as this?

(Side note: 2,555,000,000 years old. Hmm.)

And yet I believe! Well, I believe in something, and my beliefs are deeply intertwined with Mormonism. They may not be the Orthodox religion, but they are Godly, or, if they are not, then I have been deceived. But, I choose to believe that the Holy Ghost I have felt is real, that the answers to prayer I received about Joseph Smith are true. But I am not part of mainstream Mormon culture. They look at me funny. I scare some of them. They just don't know how to deal with me. And the more I endure, the more sick I feel when I hear their teachings. I mean their pet teachings, their naive teachings, not the truth. When they preach the truth it is still sweet, but the other things, the naive assumptions and philosophies of some of their most prominent men which they have blended with the gospel offends my spirit in subtle ways, and I would rather be in an environment more facilitative of my spiritual growth.

Is this selfish of me? I'd like to help them grow. I'd like to pitch in and teach, but I can't. My teachings are not permitted. So I feel saddened by it all.

If you like my posts, my thoughts, and want to hear more from me, or speak with me, please consider reading and commenting on my Masonic blog: Lodgical. Nearly everything I write there and elsewhere has personal religious significance to me. Even the articles I write for other organizations. If you have comments or questions to share with me of an overtly Mormon nature, or just want to chat, please contact me directly by email at jeffREMOVE_THIS_PART@storago.com

I want to talk. I have very little religious fellowship now. I am currently accepted as a sort of sojourner ("on the path") in the Jewish community, but that is not a place to deeply discuss my Latter-day Saint beliefs.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Topical Guide Confusion

Open up a copy of the LDS standard works, or use the online version. Look up in the Topical Guide, these two sections:

God the Father--Jehovah

Jesus Christ--Jehovah

Notice anything odd? It seems like the contents of these sections are intentionally reversed from what would be expected. Every reference under the "God the Father--Jehovah" section is a reference to Jesus Christ, and every reference under "Jesus Christ--Jehovah" is actually a reference to Heavenly Father. What's up with this reversal? Or does someone out there grasp this division between these verses in a way that I'm missing?

Judeo-Christian Tetragrammaton

Sometimes it is useful to pull our heads out of the sand of our own culture and see what everyone else has to say. Here are two encyclopedia articles, one on the Tetragrammaton, and one on the divine name Yahweh/Jehovah. Yes, they're both on the same topic, with slightly different focus.

Enjoy!

So Abraham never dealt with Heavenly Father?

See "One that slipped through correlation" over at By Common Consent.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has been studying the Godhead in depth. I think its interesting how most people are so naturally predisposed to recognize Old Testament Jehovah as Heavenly Father that it takes extremely careful scrutiny to realize it is inconsistent with the DIA doctrine.

I was particularly intrigued by Mark Butler (II)'s comment, #33, where he stated:

Perhaps the more interesting question is not the identification of Jehovah as the Son in the Old Testament, but the theological or doctrinal motivation for such identification. Jehovah as Heavenly Father sure seems to make a lot more sense. Why the apparent urge to turn Heavenly Father into an absentee landlord?

Here, Mark raises a very important question. What is the actual motivation behind the bizarre doctrinal shift? I have been speaking with several people lately and have been surprised to find that nearly everyone I know always assumed Jehovah was the Father, and when presented with the doctrine to the contrary either in Seminary or Sunday School have considered it to be an aberration, a quirk, something that sounds wrong and must be a mistake. Even people who by no means even attempt to be theologians naturally react this way. So what is the motivating force behind this unnatural and radically untraditional re-interpretation of scripture?

A Convert Trapped

I was a convert to the Church in 1999. I believe in it wholeheartedly. But I feel trapped right now. The missionaries never taught me the strange doctrine upon which (among a couple other things) my temple worthiness is now being held in the balance. Why would the missionaries teach about Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost but not teach me that they believe Jehovah is Jesus? They taught me and I agreed with the things they taught, and because I agreed and gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the principles they taught I was baptized. Now, I am being asked to accept that Jehovah is Jesus Christ. If there was no contradictory evidence I would have no problem with it, but there is a TON of contradictory evidence. I didn't make this stuff up. It isn't MY fault, THEY did it, the leaders of the Church who have written for years and years, and they are acting like its my own fault for believing their own writings. I am not pulling something out of my hat, I'm taking a standard Christian assumption that probably everyone has at some point or another. I don't understand. Any Jew, and any Christian who is not a strict trinitarian would agree with me. The missionaries did not teach me this deviation, I picked it up later when I started asking questions, it was the answer I got from my teachers and friends. But at that point, I was already a member, so I went along with it for a while, but as I read the scriptures and the writings of the prophets they do not all agree, there is a diversity in this teaching, and I don't want it to rest upon MY shoulders to have to state that I know an answer to it especially an answer that is as clearly wrong to me as saying that the sun isn't shining at noon.

I need to pray to God for comfort and to allow me to fully forgive not these men, but any who came before them and helped to make it so confusing for us today. They talk about me doing things that might lead one soul astray as though it is a wicked thing, while the official writings
are just as confusing and just as prone to leading people any direction on this matter. I kind of feel unappreciated because of it, I follow the patterns, I study scriptures like they ask me to, I pray, and then the answers I get they tell me not to have. I didn't put the answers there either. I guess I can't say that God did either, because they don't want me to write anything that "I know" they only want me to say that I'm thinking about or studying things, while at the same time everyone says "I know this, I know that" when bearing their testimonies. If I said "I'm thinking about the Book of Mormon being true, and I'm studying whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet." that would not be a testimony. I believe God answers prayers, and I believe I have been trapped by for some reason, and I don't think God would trap one of his children in such a situation.

ALL converts should be taught that the official position of the Church is that Jehovah is Christ before being baptized, so they are not faced with this impossible choice unwillingly. I fear the consequences no matter what I say. There is no right answer. This is the most confusing thing I've ever faced, and after wasting hundreds of hours on the subject over the past seven years, finally coming to a comforting and relievingly simple answer, I am now asked to go back into the confusing zone and to just pray about it. But my prayers were already answered, and if I pray more how do I know what to trust? How do I know what to think? What should I do?

If every convert were treated this way, the Church would be very small. I feel very small because of it. I also feel that these men although trying to be loving are also trying to avoid the situation because they are scared of it. I wish they would teach me instead of holding back my temple recommend in order to "threaten" (lovingly) me to change my belief. That is not how the missionaries taught me, they did not say you're going to hell if you don't believe this doctrine. They said here are the doctrines, try it out, pray about it, find out if it is true. If you find it out, be baptized. I thought threatening tactics of hellfire and damnation are gone with the various sects and denominations of protestant Christianity.

I have to go.

The Inquisition Has Begun

The Bloggernacle Inquisition that I mentioned back in July has begun - with me. All three members of my bishopric came over to my house tonight and spoke with me about concerns they have regarding my blog and other websites. I am not ashamed of what I have said here to date. This site represents my spiritual journey, not a static theological stance, and I am not in hiding. Let me reiterate a disclaimer similar to what I think I've said before: My views may change over time as I gain different spiritual insights and experiences, and nothing I say here should ever be taken as truth by anyone without them first backing it up with authoritative evidence from a reliable source and receiving a spiritual witness of it. Our discussion was long, and I will sum up briefly: They take issue with a few points on my blog, including my conclusions about Jehovah, and consider my inquiries regarding the theology represented in The Living Christ to be incompatible with sustaining the prophet.

However, I will not lie to escape out of a situation, and I feel compelled to answer with what is true according to my heart and conscience. The three points raised were mostly on Theology, Sustaining Leaders, and Apostate Affiliations:

First point:

Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; and do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?

Yes, I believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. This requirement makes no claims or attempts to assign names to them. And yes, I have a firm testimony of the restored gospel.

Second point:

Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

Absolutely and unequivocally he is, similar in authority to Moses, Abraham, or St. Peter, for example.

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

I do, and I welcomed them into my home to discuss these matters with me. Where I differ in interpretation of these last two statements is that I see the prophets as fallible mortal men who are inspired by God to do great things, and I am hesitant to agree that every letter or word spoken from the mouth of a prophet is utter and absolute truth. The latter position seems to be what has been asked of me, but how can one take such a view in light of the history of this Church and the various doctrines and views that have been held in favor at various times? If I were to accept infallibility, I would be required to say that the Church apostatized with Joseph Smith, because I believe Joseph to have by sheer sake of human nature made mistakes (although I am not sure if I could point out any particular). Infallibility is a bad doctrine, and can not be applied to modern prophets without great hypocrisy in not applying equal treatment to all of their predecessors in office. It seems that infallibility is not the precise understanding that these brethren are trying to move me towards, but I'm not sure what it is they want of me in this regard. I will pray about the subject.

The third point is the question regarding apostate affiliations, I believe it goes:

Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

No. My post about The September Six was cited as suspicious of sympathizing with an individual whose teachings and practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church. I have never spoken with Michael Quinn personally, (although I wouldn't mind having a chat with him at some future date,) so I think the term "affiliate" is entirely out of the question. I feel sorrow for Mike and the hard position he was in in his life. The only precepts of Michael Quinn that I agree with would be those that are positive spiritual insights and uplifting ideas regarding the Church, I do not put any type of a blanket endorsement on what Michaell Quinn has taught. There is nothing wrong in agreeing on certain or even several points with a supposed "apostate" individual, as Brigham Young taught that even Satan can teach the truth, and that we should pray for the wisdom that we may discern and receive that truth and reject the error. Certainly I would not back up any teachings or opinions of such an individual that would be attacking the Church in any way.

These men have declared that they come to me in love, and I sense that in a large portion they are genuine and sincere in this love. They shared with me that they actually enjoyed many of my posts and even learned some things from them, and that they have read "the good and the bad" and not focused solely on what was perceived to be the "bad" about my blogging. I know they together spent hours studying the things I have said, and have probably read some of my articles that no one else has ever even bothered to read. I am grateful for the care they are taking in my situation.

However, this is the second time now that I have been faced with accusations about my beliefs, and I don't know how much longer I can hold up.

Readers (however few you be): I apologize that I may not feel free to fully express myself from here on out. My personal feelings and thoughts of which I have been frank and open with you up until today are now being judged and scrutinized, and this is enough to strip anyone's ability to speak freely no matter how hard they try not to let it affect them.

I will continue to share the details of my discussions with the Bishop and his counselors as things proceed forward, and I hope it may be of some help to others who may find themselves in similar circumstances. To the Bishop and his counselors, whom I expect will ultimately read this as well: I hope it may help you relate to the feelings I have, to have ones ideas be placed under scrutiny.

Jehovah, the Father of Jesus Christ

The LDS Hymn Book from 1840
Title Page, and Preface:

These hymns were selected by the First Presidency for the use of the Saints.
I wanted to share Hymn #150, which gives a demonstration of the early LDS understanding of the identity of Jehovah:

Jehovah = Father (in 1854)

This is from the "Children's Catechism", published by Apostles Franklin D. Richards in 1854, available from online collection at BYU. It can be observed that at this point in time, Jehovah was still considered to be the Father, and Jesus Christ to be His Son, and that this was (correctly) taught to the children being raised in the Church at that time.

Mormon Gnostics Podcast

I've just started a Mormon Gnostics Podcast to go along with this blog, and the first episode is 001 - Theology, Moses 1:1-23. Enjoy!

The Living Christ was... what?

On January 1, 2000, the First Presidency issued a statement titled The Living Christ, which contains the statement: "He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New."

I am interested in how other Mormons who have studied theology interpret this confusing statement. I have two issues with it. First, Jehovah is not Christ. However naturally this supposition may seem to Latter-day Saints today, it was not the understanding of Joseph Smith or the early Saints. It is a modern innovation, adopted from the line of thinking that creates the Protestant Trinity, and as far as I know, no revelation has ever been given on it (unless The Living Christ is it!), and it flies in the face of other revelations we have received. Even the Apostle Orson Pratt, who nearly got excommunicated for disagreeing with Brigham Young on the Adam-God issue, believed Jehovah to be the Father:

"God is love," says the Apostle John," and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." If, then, this is one of the great attributes of Jehovah, if he is filled with love and compassion towards the children of men, if his son Jesus Christ so loved the world that he gave his life to redeem mankind from the effects of the fall, then, certainly, God the Eternal Father must be in possession of this passion.
--Orson Pratt, November 12, 1876; JD Vol.18, p.288

Charles W. Penrose also agreed:

God, then, the God of the Bible, who is called Jehovah, the person who manifested Himself to Israel as Jehovah, is an individual, a personality, and He made man in His image and His likeness. Now, if we are the children of God, and if Jesus Christ is the Son of God, we can upon that reasoning understand something about what God is like, for there is an eternal principle in heaven and on earth, that every seed begets of its kind, every seed brings forth in its own likeness and character.
--Charles W. Penrose, November 16, 1884; JD Vol.26, p.21

This topic has been covered extensively in articles such as "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology" by Thomas G. Alexander which appeared in Sunstone, July-August 1980. Some excerpts from this article are available online. However, as far as I know, this is the first time all fifteen Apostles have put out a signed statement proclaiming this notion, and that is concerning to me.

The second issue is "the Messiah of the New." That seems a preposterous statement to me, as Messiah is a Hebrew word, which is not to be found in the New Testament at all.

The remainder of the document seems theologically sound. My main explanation for this: The Living Christ is a testimony, not a revelation on Theology. There is no reason to expect it to contain accurate theological information when the people writing it have been raised up immersed in a population carrying the same popular understanding of the Godhead as we find in modern LDS literature and not the one given by revelation.

Joseph's Doctrine

People like to 'blame' the Adam-God doctrine on Brigham Young. It was actually Joseph's Doctrine, and it seems to be easily demonstrable through our LDS scriptures.

D&C 27:11 reads:

And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

This establishes the first part of the doctrine, that Michael and Adam are the same being. The rest of the Christian world typically holds to one of two other interpretations: Michael is Jesus Christ, or Michael is just an Angel. Through revelation recorded in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants we know that Michael is Adam.

The next and final point is in Daniel 7:9,13-14:

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
...
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Two things to notice here. First is that the Ancient of Days sits upon a throne, and second and more importantly is that Jesus Christ receives his dominion, glory, and kingdom from Him. If you have any question as to the direction the authority is being passed, you can even take a look at the footnotes in the current LDS edition of the scriptures for verse 9 you find that footnote c refers to TG Adam and for verse 14 you will find TG Jesus Christ, Authority Of and TG Jesus Christ, Millennial Reign. (TG = Topical Guide)

So, if you're one who is considering throwing out notion of Adam-God, be sure to throw out Adam-Michael too, for they both lead to the same conclusion.

The part a comprehensive study of Brigham's teachings chiefly clarifies is that Adam Himself also had a God, which He and His immediate children worshipped and served. This "Grandfather" that brigham Referred to may be the being properly referred to as Jehovah. Elohim seems to have been viewed as a Great-Grandfather, and a whole hierarchy of Gods was implied in the sense that we should not expect that any Man is created without a Father.

To the early Saints, the being called Jehovah was identified mainly with God the Father and did not become a pseudonym for Jesus Christ until relatively recent times (around the 1920's). A small vestige of this is left in the Endowment ceremony where Jehovah refers to "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" (third person), and I have heard rumor that a much earlier script for the ceremony had a Jesus character cast under a separate actor.

This was indeed Joseph's doctrine. It was and should be an important doctrine of the Restoration, and was deemed the first principle of the Gospel by Joseph Smith and among the first principles of the gospel by Brigham Young. Joseph said we needed to obtain a correct understanding of the characters, attributes and perfections of God in order to be able to exercise faith unto salvation, and Brigham said that these things will determine our salvation or damnation. They preached the same message.

What is the objection, folks? God was once a sinner, and mortal. This is no surprise, we still learn in the Church today that we may gain exaltation, and if we expect to attain Godhood even though we are sinners presently, why would Father (or Christ) have done it in any different manner?

Joseph also taught that Christ did nothing that the Father didn't do already. It has been implied (if not outright taught) that the Father once lived mortal life and died as a sacrifice for the salvation of the beings on a previous world, and that Christ is following this pattern.

Lucifer also bears testimony of this arrangement, as he claims that he is only doing what has been done on other worlds.

We should be willing and prepared to do many great things in the Spirit World, and to undertake and perform the same things that the Son has done for us for another people, and to proceed upward from there as He is about to do, and serve as Adam's and Eve's of our own World, where our own Spirit Children will experience mortality.